Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Win Smith who wrote (58695)	11/25/2002 11:52:37 AM
From: carranza2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The "regular posting community" will no doubt get the war they so fervently desire soon enough. A cheap and dishonest shot. Below the belt, not to mention untrue.

To: Win Smith who wrote (58695)	11/25/2002 1:07:24 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Win, Since you persist in damning anyone to the right of you and demonizing anyone who disagrees, I don't really know how to have a discussion. From your 'straight' answer - I am guessing (and its just that) that you are against any form of intervention under any circumstance abroad. If thats true, its a valid position even though I choose to disagree. Pacifism and isolationism are valid and as American as apple-pie. While some accused Charles Linburgh of being a traitor during WW2, history remembers him simply as a pacifist. Despite the rhetoric from Rush and company on Carter - I suspect he will be remembered in a similar way. Now saying that pacifism equates to a Chamberlain-like capitulation to dictatorships may be offensive to you, but thats not the same as calling you a traitor. We should all strive to remember that while Chamberlain's diplomacy failed - thats not the same as saying all diplomacy is a failure. Myself I would have been in Yugosolvia, Somolia and Rhwanda and would have lobbied NATO, the UN or anyone I could to join coalitions for those efforts (but would have been unilateral if need be). The presence of oil in the case of Iraq should not negate its similarity to the others. Or can we only intervene when we have no visible self-interest? John

To: Win Smith who wrote (58695)	11/25/2002 1:08:00 PM
From: paul_philp	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

The "regular posting community" will no doubt get the war they so fervently desire soon enough. You self-righteous SOB. Don't pretend that you know me, you have not taken a moment of thought to understand my perspective. If you have no other tactic than building and killing strawmen, I assume you have no argument at all. Why FL let's you away with this stuff boggles my mind. (hint, hint, subtle hint). Paul

To: Win Smith who wrote (58695)	11/25/2002 1:52:40 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Our "regular posting community" prefers (very slightly more) subtle codewords, like Chamberlain and other random Godwin's Law demonstrations Chamberlain was no traitor and nobody here said he was. He was an honorable man who pursued a rational diplomatic policy which turned out to be disasterously mistaken. You may think we all must play by a Godwin's Rule which forbids any mention of the Third Reich, no matter whether it is done soberly and in context or not, but it's not so, and I for one do not grant you the right to triumphantly wave a Godwin's Rule yellow card just because someone mentioned Chamberlain. If this is all the evidence you can muster that opponents of the war are being called traitors, it's pretty poor. Rush Limbaugh is not a member of administration. (Besides, for every inflammatory Limbaugh quote you can find, I can dig up a matching one from Ted Rall and his ilk.) You said that the Bush administration called its opposition traitors. I'm still waiting to see your evidence.